I am a Democrat for RKBA

First know this...I'm with you on RKBA for sane, red-blooded Americans from the start. I've been on THR for 10 years as an advocate for 2A. I own multiple so-called "assault" weapons, handguns, shotguns, etc...

Yeah, this may be daring (and/or asking for trouble), but as a Texas Democrat, I want to make my voice heard on behalf of many other Dems.

I state the following hoping to remove a lot of the anti-Liberal non-2A crap I've been seeing over the years...both here on THR and from the NRA, of which I am proudly NOT a member. I know it's an uphill climb, but I won't stop until I've convinced everyone.

***I am not a single-issue voter, although the 2nd Amendment is a major issue for me.

***I voted for President Obama, as did a majority of Americans (thus, he's prez). I would eagerly vote for him again today.

***I voted for President Obama believing that he would not unduly curtail my 2nd Amendment rights. I also voted for him because of other issues I believe in, like Social Security, Foreign Policy (ending our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), Equal Rights (like gays in the military and equal pay for women), and accountability to the middle class on Wall Street.

I, like a MAJORITY of Americans (many Dems and pretty much all Republicans), support the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. While a lot of my Democratic brethren may not be wholly familiar with my battle cry MOLON LABE like you and I are, many (yes, more than 50% of Dems) believe American citizens should be able to own some serious firearms.

Yep, I disagree with restricting "assault weapons" which is a wacko Diane Feinstein creation born of ignorance because certain rifles look "scary" (it's just "scary" looking furniture on an "evil" black gun). I also strongly disagree with restricting magazine caps at 10. Bad guys are bad guys...they'll find a way to kill regardless. Like MOST of my Dem brethren, I do not think Diane Feinstein speaks for me with every breath she takes!!! (Does your GOP Rep/Senator speak for you on EVERY issue???).

What I DON'T disagree with is the alleged "Weak Liberal" sentiment of reducing gun crimes through reducing access of firearms to the mentally deranged. Background checks to see if you've been treated for significant mental disturbance, or have been involved in criminal violence, is not just ok, it's absolutely the right thing to do. Even at gun shows or between private citizens.

My view (and I'm absolutely right about this) is that being pro-2A has become synonymous with being a Conservative Republican in ALL regards for ALL issues. Well, I've got news for you. If you're pro-2A and you and I disagree about the need for government-provided safety nets like Medicaid and Social Security, then you and I have differences of opinion on completely different issues. You and I believe in 2A, but we disagree on Welfare. That's fine, but leave your wholesale Liberal-bashing on another forum dedicated to Welfare reform.

I'm sick and *censored* tired of the *censored* damned Liberal bashing based on a single issue when you really have a problem with ALL Liberal issues. Leave that crap elsewhere, I urge you. While we're here on this forum, let's talk about how to convince ALL our politicians, Left and Right, how to keep their hands off the guns of us law-abiding red-blooded Americans. If you have a problem with my pro-welfare stance, meet me on another website about THAT issue.

If you enjoyed reading about "I am a Democrat for RKBA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

MaterDei

January 31, 2013, 01:22 AM

I... support the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
I voted for President Obama

You contradict yourself, sir.

I know it's an uphill climb, but I won't stop until I've convinced everyone.

The arrogance of this statement and much of your post is so typical of liberals. It's 'my way or the highway'. You will NEVER convince everyone of anything. Frankly, you should set the goal of convincing ONE person of what you believe. Good luck with that.

Alaska444

January 31, 2013, 01:24 AM

With all due respect, voting for someone that is openly anti-gun is not the best way to support the 2A. At this point, we all sink or swim together since you and the majority voted for this man. I did not. The only sure way is to not vote for those who are openly antigun. Sorry, but are you trying to pick a fight with those of another political persuasion? Not a THR post at all. You are not off to a good start convincing me or anyone from your tone.

TAKtical

January 31, 2013, 01:26 AM

115 posts over 10 years? You should visit more often.

eazyrider

January 31, 2013, 01:31 AM

I agree with the Democrats on a lot of issues. But, unfortunately for them gun rights are my main issue. Therefore I vote Republican. I do see your point though, I get what you are trying to do. But your in a tough spot because your issues don't mesh with one party. I am in the same boat but again gun rights trump most other issues for me.

tarosean

January 31, 2013, 01:36 AM

***I voted for President Obama believing that he would not unduly curtail my 2nd Amendment rights. I also voted for him because of other issues I believe in, like Social Security, Foreign Policy (ending our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), Equal Rights (like gays in the military and equal pay for women), and accountability to the middle class on Wall Street.

How is all that working out for you??

I do believe background checks are the one thing that we will see become law during this storm..

JERRY

January 31, 2013, 01:42 AM

you sound like a meat eating vegetarian.

ljnowell

January 31, 2013, 02:06 AM

Sorry HM, this has nothing to do with me being partisan, it has to do with you living in denial. You say you voted Obama, would do it again. BUT you are concerned about your rights and want to fight it. Those statements dont add up. I cant possibly take you serious.

I didnt agree with many things Bush did in his first term, guess what? I didnt vore for him after that. Until "pro gun" democrats grow the guts to vote against the antis in thier party, we all get what you vote for.

leadcounsel

January 31, 2013, 02:17 AM

While we're here on this forum, let's talk about how to convince ALL our politicians, Left and Right, how to keep their hands off the guns of us law-abiding red-blooded Americans.

I agree.

But you are blind to not see that voting in a person who HATES your rights and wants to get rid of them is contrary to your 2A position.

Obama WILL do or try to do irreparable damage to the 2A through Executive Orders, Laws, and SCOTUS appointments (1-3) that will systematically ruin the 2A and other freedoms.

You should repent by writing all of your leaders in the Senate and local governments to keep their hands off the 2A.

Arbor

January 31, 2013, 02:20 AM

I completely agree with the OP (except for the part about background checks. We don't need more laws). While gun-rights are a serious issue, it is hard to vote for someone who you disagree with on every other issue. There are a hell of a lot more liberal gun owners than you guys realize. It is not helping our fight when we are fighting each other.

When gun owners bash all liberals, it makes it seem to those who support gun restrictions that ALL liberals are with them on that issue. It's simply not the case, and we are better off fighting for the specific issues. Don't make enemies where you don't have to. I might disagree with most of the people here on politics in general, but I am with you 100% in the fight to keep and bear arms.

P.S. How is that assault weapon ban that Romney signed treating you, Massachusetts?

Girodin

January 31, 2013, 02:26 AM

So you are a member of an organization who has it as an express plank of their platform to take away your second amendment rights all while being "pro RKBA?"

You voted for politicians who have openly expressed their desires (pre election too) to take away your second amendment rights, and claim to be pro RKBA?

And how is that working out right now?

I voted for President Obama believing that he would not unduly curtail my 2nd Amendment rights.

You should thank God there are enough Republicans in the house that he wont be able to. If it were up to him he would do it faster than you could blink. That much has become painfully clear.

It was the "pro gun" democrats that were the first to call for a discusssion where everything was on the table, and other euphanisism for calling for an AWB, something their party has been calling for ever since we got some of our rights back in 2004, thanks largely to a republican controlled congress and White House.

While we're here on this forum, let's talk about how to convince ALL our politicians, Left and Right, how to keep their hands off the guns of us law-abiding red-blooded Americans.

Or you could start by voting for folks that actually acknowledge and believe in your constitutional rights. It seems that would be much more effective than voting for someone who has stated they want to and intend to infringe upon them and then discussing how we could convince them not to. In fact, to be blunt, the latter sounds like a pretty stupid strategy and giant waste of time. You know how you convince politicians to not infringe on your constitutional rights, by not voting for those that do so or openly state their desires and intents to do so.

It seems to me you have recognized that your party, and its members are the pretty much the main and sole threat to the second amendment and you don't like having to fess up to that. Trying to separate the democrats stance on the second from everything else is a bit ingeniousness or perhaps just sadly naive. Their moves to disarm us are part of larger agenda. You don't think they really believe any of their proposals will make anyone safer from criminals do you? Its a power play designed as part of their agenda to change the balance of power between the people and the government.

Mods should probably lock this thread now.

Girodin

January 31, 2013, 02:31 AM

It is not helping our fight when we are fighting each other.

Its not helping our fight at all if they will vote for people who will try to abridge our rights.

but I am with you 100% in the fight to keep and bear arms.

I would say 100% is much to high a figure if you are voting for anti gun politicians or do other things to help them get elected. It is also too high a figure if you are a member of the democratic party or give that party money given their party plat form plank on gun control.

You cannot vote for anti gun politicians (of any party) and then claim to be with me 100% on the second amendment. There are democratic politicians with strong pro RKBA records, they just are bloody rare.

David White

January 31, 2013, 02:38 AM

I think that the OP's post was daring, openly honest and worthy of reading.
As long as he stands firm for his 2A rights, I see him as an asset for our cause.
He has every right to vote for whom ever he wants based on his beliefs and convictions. For that and for admitting such, knowing he would take flack for it, I applaud him.
We need all the help we can get on 2A issues and if he is on board with that, I think that's what matters most.

Alaska444

January 31, 2013, 02:47 AM

I think that the OP's post was daring, openly honest and worthy of reading.
As long as he stands firm for his 2A rights, I see him as an asset for our cause.
He has every right to vote for whom ever he wants based on his beliefs and convictions. For that and for admitting such, knowing he would take flack for it, I applaud him.
We need all the help we can get on 2A issues and if he is on board with that, I think that's what matters most.
If you are for dismantling any part of our constitutional rights, you shouldn't cry foul when your pet favorite right is challenged. They are ALL connected. If one falls, they all fall. Obama is the most anti-constitutional president we have ever had. It is only sour grapes to realize he is using his supporters to dismantle this country. How are those taxes in your paycheck as well. So much for not raising taxes on anyone with less than $250,000. So much for any part of the Bill of Rights. You state you care about the 2A, what about the rest of the constitution?

Sorry, these sort of unity threads just don't turn it for me. There is a great discordancy in America today between those that understand the true nature of freedom and are willing to fight for those rights and many who truly don't understand the dangers that Obama places on ALL of our rights, not just the 2A. Sorry, but if they ever restrict our 2A rights, those that voted for Obama will share the responsibility for the loss of those and many other rights. Elections have consequences as the great Obama keeps reminding us.

Girodin

January 31, 2013, 03:08 AM

As long as he stands firm for his 2A rights, I see him as an asset for our cause.

Well according to his own post he is not. He is voting for people or at least one in Obama, who openly wanted to infringe on those rights.

We need all the help we can get on 2A issues and if he is on board with that, I think that's what matters most

When you seek to get anti gun politicians in office, particularly ones that can appoint SCOTUS justices and other federal judges, are you really on board though? I'd say not so much.

To the OP, what RKBA organizations do you belong to? Which ones have you given money to? What, in concrete terms have you done to actually support the RKBA?

Kiln

January 31, 2013, 03:09 AM

You say that you voted for him and would gladly vote for him again, yet he's at the tip of the spear that is trying to stab our constitutional right to bear arms. This dirt bag is trying to pass off the second amendment as a hunter/sportsman's "tradition" and a large portion of ignorant liberals are behind him.

Turns out that, big surprise, Obama is still anti gun in the second term and now has nothing to fear about being re-elected. Notice how his mouth was shut tight on the issue until he won the election?

In the past he voted against concealed carry, he voted to uphold the handgun ban in Illinois, supported licensing and registration, and was on record saying that Bush screwed up not renewing the AWB. Where was the doubt about his agenda? Where are all of the libs arguing that Obama is pro gun now?

Basically any gun owner who voted for Obama was totally ignorant of the president's record or didn't care. In which case, please don't be such an idiot next time around and then come whining that he's trying to attack your rights.

goon

January 31, 2013, 03:12 AM

The OP makes a valid point.
I DID NOT vote for Obama because I have never personally trusted him. When he was campaigning in PA on his first run and made his "cling to their guns and religion" comment, I knew he wasn't interested in leading all Americans. I am not overly religious but I know many people who are very faithful and they shouldn't be attacked BY THE LEADER OF THEIR NATION for that.
And obviously, I disagree with his attack on the Second Amendment.

Having said that, there are a lot of democrats, even very liberal ones, who strongly support the RKBA. And the republicans in NY just perpetrated the worst assault on the Second Amendment at the state level I have ever seen. Even without that, anyone who voted for Mitt Romney supported a candidate who cheerfully signed an assault weapons ban into law in Massachusetts. There is plenty of blame to go around for both parties when it comes to a lack of respect for the Second Amendment.

And I would ask that the Mods please not lock this thread. I promise to be civil and try to keep this on a gun related track. The thread I started kind of like this one got closed down because others wouldn't keep it on track, but this is a conversation we as gun owners could stand to have.

Ragnar Danneskjold

January 31, 2013, 03:18 AM

If you side with the Statists, you're no friend to the 2A no matter what you choose to tell yourself.

Mr.454

January 31, 2013, 03:33 AM

Both Romney and Obama are anti-gun so this was going to happen no matter who got elected. The president can't appear weak in light of Sandy Hook so of course he will back a bill that I'm sure he knows won't pass. And the OP is right the democrat bashing happens a lot as if no republicans vote against 2A rights. How about James Brady you know the "Brady Bill" a republican. I don't vote for someone just based on guns sorry you don't get my vote just cause you support one thing. And that is what the OP was saying and I agree completely. This is not a republican or democrat issue this is an American issue.

Kiln

January 31, 2013, 03:35 AM

The reason that liberals catch so much flak for being against the second amendment is because "progressive" types are overwhelmingly the ones behind legislation like the proposed AWB, universal background checks, and registration.

nazshooter

January 31, 2013, 03:36 AM

If you side with the Statists, you're no friend to the 2A no matter what you choose to tell yourself.

Unfortunately that eliminates both major parties.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Mr.454

January 31, 2013, 03:38 AM

Both parties are equally useless.

Ragnar Danneskjold

January 31, 2013, 03:40 AM

Unfortunately that eliminates both major parties

You're absolutely right. The GOP has been banking on the "Only be 99% as bad as the Democrats" strategy for many many decades with regards to nearly all policy issues, including guns. They know they don't have to be good. They only need to slightly less bad and nearly half of the nation will keep picking "the lesser of two evils" over and over.

The fact remains that you are who you vote for. At the end of the day, voting (or running for office yourself) is the primary method any citizen has over public policy. You can talk and post and complain about your beliefs all day long, but the only real lasting impact any of your thoughts have on real policy is your vote. If you vote for statists, you're a statist. If you vote for gun-grabbers, you're no better than a gun-grabber. Keep lying to yourself that you're doing the right thing if it makes you feel better, but the truth always comes out. As a great author once said, you can always choose to deny reality, but you can never choose to deny the consequences of denying reality. And with Obama and his ilk contemplating more tyrannical gun grabbing policies every day, the reality is that if you support him, you support tyranny.

captain awesome

January 31, 2013, 03:50 AM

to me, the RKBA issue is THE issue. once its gone, there's nothing keeping the rest of the rights or "issues" in the best interest of the individual, or even majority. It all goes to pot.

blarby

January 31, 2013, 04:02 AM

Sadly, you can't claim to be a "moderate" "pro-gun" "Democrat" here.

Everyone just <edit>'s on you, and says its not possible.

Regardless of what you belong to, or who you vote for. I didn't vote for 'em- but I didn't vote for the other one, either. Doesn't matter- if you don't try and jam your EBR into the voting booth, you are a plant for the other side.

You might as well call yourself member of the waffen taliban party.

Big part of why our side ( 2a ) gets our <edit> handed to us all the time politically... if if we win on fact, we lose the court of pubblic opinion. - we can't even accept help and support when its staring us in the face. ITs gotta be some trick, some landmine, or some half-truth. A lot of our side are actually as mentally tinfoil hat as they paint us to be. You can't be a moderate gun owner on a gun board- you have to be a tactical political ninja who brooks no quarter in the fight for 'merica.

We're all bad guys, for the other side- we do nothing, and can do nothing here to help.

We're all sheeps in wolves clothing, liars, turncoats, .... oh- socialists and communists too, because they all know what that means.

Welcome to the boat.

If you don't accept the entire right line, you will always be a gun grabbing anti-constitutional liberal 'bagger.

You can't have thoughts of your own, beliefs that differ, you just have to eat the whole lemon- like it or not.

Oh wait- you are seeing that currently...... My bad.

But, this isn't activism- as there is no plan of action action here. Thanks for crucifying yourself, but this'll be closed shortly unless you come up with a plan other than jumping on a BBS landmine to prove a point.

goon

January 31, 2013, 04:02 AM

I tend to vote mostly on RKBA. I would vote Democrat more often if the RKBA were not at risk, but when has that ever happened? It's always at risk. Even when it's not a campaign issue with a mass theater shooting just before the election, it becomes an issue before the inauguration even takes place.

Without RKBA, all other rights become privileges. I am pretty liberal anymore, but I still trust you conservative gents with AK's in your safes, you recently discharged veterans with M-4 clones in your closets, and you good ol' boys with scoped .270's and old 30-30's to help protect the bill of rights more than I trust any politician. You, and I, and everyone else - we are the People. The Founders trusted you, so do I.

But we have to stop this bickering. We have to shut up and put our efforts into securing our rights together. We can argue amongst ourselves later - today we must stop the giant.

ironhead7544

January 31, 2013, 05:01 AM

Denial is not just a river in Africa.

The people who you support hate you for owning a gun. They do not want you to have any power. You have to understand that. They wont say it to your face but they think you are a criminal for just wanting to own a gun. You are being used. The Democrats are not Democrats anymore. They are radical leftists. Look through their lies. Anyone who wants to takes your guns does not have your best interests at heart.

What you really need to do is convince your side to leave the Second alone. The other stuff can be worked on but I will not change my mind on that. If we lose the Second, we are done.

goon

January 31, 2013, 05:42 AM

You're right - democrats need to convince the left to leave the Second Amendment alone. And only democrats can do that - no amount of conservative bellowing will have any impact. Democrats can influence this in primary elections. Alienating people who can wield this power in support of the RKBA is a poor decision.

And yet, by the time I check this thread again, I expect that is exactly what will have happened.

Mp7

January 31, 2013, 05:42 AM

I´m always scared when i read that people thing it`s okay to vote a complete nutjob into office on a single issue like RKBA.

And the first 10 comments i read here don't make happy.

Ash

January 31, 2013, 05:57 AM

Well...

Your support to Obama, knowing he would support such an out right ban because he called for it on the campaign, means, well, you gave them the power they need to accomplish a ban. You helped him attack us. Do I think you support the ban itself? Evidently not, your words establish that, though not perhaps as much indignation as the rest of us. But you did seek his reelection and lended him your support. You do not have to now walk in lock-step, but you also must accept that party that most closely espouses your political beliefs has stridently supported a ban on many firearms, and includes that in its general plank. The baby and the bath water cannot be separated in your vote. He is doing only what he said he would do. You cannot divide your vote and say your vote counts only for the things you like. The whole package got your vote.

You decided that social issues for you trump your interest in RKBA, so you're not 100%, indeed, RBKA is completely subservient to the other issues (by the way, everybody, right left and center, thinks women deserve equal pay for equal work and equal experience, so that is a non-starter, and Social Security reform didn't pan out BECAUSE of the left, and Obamacare will probably be an even greater boon-doggle than welfare or SS, but and understanding of economics is not at issue here).

I suppose my point is, for a time, you need to accept that there will be outrage towards the left because it seeks to silence us, label us Nazis, and then deny us our rights. The words "crush, obliterate, destroy" are used by those who count themselves in your camp. If firearms are indeed banned, it will not be the result of my vote. The left throws terrible words at us, which is Nazi behavior in that it dehumanizes US and OUR positions, promises to protect our rights while tearing them from us.

However, we may stand together and fight the common enemy. You and I might disagree on the rights of killing 3rd trimester babies, on my right to keep my own money rather than support a legion of those who refuse to work, on socialized medicine, on private property rights, or other liberal vs. conservative topics. Yet we might agree now and work towards the common protection of our rights. Accept that your vote will not be popular at the moment. Don't waste time defending it. I'm more than willing to stand with you about guns.

You see, I understand the importance of making a stand. My family homesteaded near DeFuniak Springs following Sherman's march to the sea. We lost most everything to hm and his army, yet never owned slaves. I have my great great grandfather's Colt 1849 Pocket Pistol he carried, at the age of 14 in the Battle of Atlanta. He got shot but survived the war. His father, also at the battle, fought to prevent their property from being taken but in the end it was. So, with what they had left they went south and started over. They lived free and responsible lives, and the homestead remains. It is but a small plot of land with a small farm house - they never had much but they had enough. Free, independent, responsible but armed. That is my philosophy today - and for me it more closely aligns with the right, not the left. A citizen should be taught to stand on his or her own two feet, to not accept the scraps from the government, and to be free - free from government's encroaching hand. Had we but taught that, instead of welfare, entire segments of society would now be far better, and the violent gun crimes in government housing projects - crimes committed largely by illegal weapons already - would not be happening.

Three times my family has used firearms to protect ourselves from looters or worse: the first was my grandfather with a Hopkins & Allen revolver in the 1950's against a home invasion - nobody shot but two baddies held until the deputy arrived, the second following Hurricane Camille where my mom, as looters began to break into the house, donned my dad's handgun and sat at the kitchen table with it leveled at the door (she drew a line that the looters, seeing her through the window, refused to cross), the last, when my grand parents were elderly in the 1980's when Florida had the rash of rest stop assaults, a man tried to carjack the car with my little sister in the back seat, my grandfather drew his Smith and Wesson he kept under a cloth between the car seat cushions - my grandmother could not walk or escape.

That is why I stridently oppose the government at this time and will grimly stand with you against what it seeks to do. That knife I feel in my back from your vote - as harsh as it might sound - remains but I stand with you all the same. Perhaps we can save ALL our rights and not be reduced to subjugation to a capricious police force.

That's a very big part of why we do not allow discussions of topics outside the strictest focus on guns, shooting, and RKBA.

To a Democrat-voting gun owner, I really don't know what to say. Try, try, PLEASE try, to change your representatives' positions from within the ranks -- I guess -- but continuing to vote for them regardless of their appalling transgressions makes your appeals ring mighty hollow to those representatives, and to your fellow gun owners as well.

If other issues are important enough to you to keep voting anti-gunners into office, then you're simply not fighting for gun rights. It just isn't important enough to you to motivate you to do anything productive for the cause. You may be a gun-rights wisher, but wishing one way and voting the other ... well, you might as well quit your wishin'.

alsaqr

January 31, 2013, 06:24 AM

I´m always scared when i read that people thing it`s okay to vote a complete nutjob into office on a single issue like RKBA.

i don't think so. Twice in my lifetime i've been involved in shootouts with gun armed home invaders. i'm still here and i vote for pro-gunners: Nothing else matters.

hso

January 31, 2013, 06:51 AM

My view (and I'm absolutely right about this) is that being pro-2A has become synonymous with being a Conservative Republican in ALL regards for ALL issues. Well, I've got news for you. If you're pro-2A and you and I disagree about the need for government-provided safety nets like Medicaid and Social Security, then you and I have differences of opinion on completely different issues. You and I believe in 2A, but we disagree on Welfare. That's fine, but leave your wholesale Liberal-bashing on another forum dedicated to Welfare reform.

I'm sick and *censored* tired of the *censored* damned Liberal bashing based on a single issue when you really have a problem with ALL Liberal issues. Leave that crap elsewhere, I urge you. While we're here on this forum, let's talk about how to convince ALL our politicians, Left and Right, how to keep their hands off the guns of us law-abiding red-blooded Americans. If you have a problem with my pro-welfare stance, meet me on another website about THAT issue.

We're in agreement there.

Most people are not single issue voters.

THR is a single issue site and the members should set aside all else and focus on that issue, RKBA. It isn't easy for many and it isn't possible for some and that comes through, but the majority of our members don't muddy the water with their other politics. There are those that loudly do at times though and they hurt our cause and the cause of all RKBA advocates.

We need every voter in this country of every persuasion that supports reason and RKBA to stop the irrational, illogical, lying Antis in government who with their outdated ideas and legislation continue to try to take away our right to keep and bear arms using us as scapegoats for the acts of criminals and madmen. Bashing any segment of the 2A community over their other beliefs is tantamount to betraying RKBA at this time when we need every person in the struggle.

beatledog7

January 31, 2013, 07:03 AM

I voted for President Obama believing that he would not unduly curtail my 2nd Amendment rights.

There's the tell, my friend. You say you support 2A, but you said you didn't think Obama would "unduly" curtail RKBA (you underscored it). That means you think you some curtailment, aka infringement, is due.

No. Sorry, no.

LemmyCaution

January 31, 2013, 07:06 AM

If other issues are important enough to you to keep voting anti-gunners into office, then you're simply not fighting for gun rights. It just isn't important enough to you to motivate you to do anything productive for the cause. You may be a gun-rights wisher, but wishing one way and voting the other ... well, you might as well quit your wishin'.

Sam-

I don't view the 2nd Amendment as being superior to or more threatened than the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments. And while the Republicans are inarguably better on the 2A than the Democrats, the Democrats are inarguably better on the other parts of the Bill of Rights noted above. As such, I think there is a very reasonable case for voting for Democrats and pushing them to improve on their 2A stance from within.

That said, lately the Democrats have lost their way on the rest of the Bill of Rights, as well, and I've voted third party in the last several national elections.

Ragnar Danneskjold

January 31, 2013, 07:12 AM

Most people are not single issue voters.

Very true. Republican/Democrat is an outdated model, if it was ever accurate at all. All issues essentially fall on a statist/libertarian (small L. The ideas, not the party) scale. Those who favor more government involvement in an issue are statist. Those who favor issues being handled on the smallest, preferably individual, level are libertarian. This is because liberty itself is a directly individual-oriented concept. Liberty oriented = libertarian. State oriented = statist.

The fact remains. If you find yourself favoring more government involvement and control on a wide variety of issues, you are a statist. Whether you call yourself that or not is irrelevant. You favor state involvement. The Second Amendment exists primarily to fight statism. It is an individual liberty to protect oneself from the state.

So while things like medicare, taxes, welfare, etc all have nothing to do with gun rights per se, they all still fall on the libertarian/statist scale. If you find yourself having statist views on those issues, you are a statist. That places you firmly in the enemy camp. I'm sorry, but we're getting too close to the brink of total destruction of gun rights (and many other rights) in the country to mince words and tip-toe around it. Statism is wrong, and if you support politicians through voting or even vocally who are statists, you are wrong as well. Gun control is simply one aspect of the overall mindset that the state can and should do a better job managing things than an individual. Ash made some very accurate points. Your vote is the bed you made. It's time to sleep in it. I'm sorry if you're angry and ashamed at being called out for what you are. But when you pulled the lever for a statist candidate, you allied yourself with the enemies of individual liberty and gun ownership in particular. You are to blame. Don't cry about it. Sit down, take a good hard look at your own views and ask yourself why you think you support the individual right to gun ownership but also seek to undercut individual liberties in other areas. You can't have both. Support the individual or support the state. Choose. And then be man or woman enough to stand by your choice. You pulled the lever in November. You have a hand in our current gun control plight. If that distresses you, perhaps it's time you rethink your allegiances.

beatledog7

January 31, 2013, 07:14 AM

Let's cut to the chase. Members of both parties generally downplay the Constitution, 2A included, and will try to circumvent it, whenever it interferes with their agenda (which is, above all else, to maintain and increase their power by getting into and remaining in office).

Just about any Elephant or Donkey will argue against the Constitution when he or she has a goal that it blocks.

heeler

January 31, 2013, 07:22 AM

Just so the OP of this thread knows that before Barack Obama became President of this nation he is on record of stating he did not think anyone should have firearms with the exception of the police and military.
I am not so confident he has our rights in our best interest.

vito

January 31, 2013, 07:26 AM

In some ways Obama is more dangerous to the 2nd Amendment than other liberal, control-your-life and build-bigger-government Democrats because he is a extreme left wing ideologue who seems unable to grasp the concept of compromise (to him it seems to mean capitulating to his position with nothing in return from him) and elitist (who sees no problem with having one set of rules for the ruling elite and another set for the rest of us peasants, like the jet-owning environmentalists telling us to reduce OUR carbon footprint). While he served in IL he voted "present" on many issues, not willing to risk offending voters by showing his true beliefs, but voted "yes" on every gun control measure ever proposed during his years as a State Senator. He even seems to believe that breaking the law is OK if it helps achieve a "higher good" in his opinion, evidenced by his approval of Fast and Furious which clearly was a ploy to encourage if not force licensed gun dealers to sell illegally, so that later he could claim U.S. sold guns were fueling the Mexican cartels. There is no doubt in my mind that had Fast and Furious not been blown open and become public knowledge it would have been the basis for seeking even more draconian gun control laws than Sandy Hook has seemed to spawn.

ID-shooting

January 31, 2013, 07:31 AM

Call me a single-issue voter. I tend to use RKBA as a litmus on other rights. I despise the Patriot Act but so long long as the Second is in place, we have a means to resist.

I do seem to remember a motra that was passed here many years ago. "Loathe the Republican who passed the Patriot Act, fear the Democrat who would use it."

I am registered Constitutionalist, I believe in a strict interpretation. I have to hold my nose to vote for anyone in the current pool. Sadly, my votes in recent elections are more against someone than for someone.

Texan Scott

January 31, 2013, 07:32 AM

I'm Libertarian, which means some Rs think I'm nuts and some think I'm the devil; some Ds are surprised that I side with them on certain issues, and then horrified to find out WHY.

I am NOT a single issue voter; it's just that the RKBA is such a polarized issue that it can easily be used as one of my litmus tests. Anti-2A tendencies generally betray an underlying antipathy to liberty and a tendency toward the statist mentality in general.

I also recognize that a great many Texas Ds are more in agreement with me than a lot of Yankee Rs; it's not that they're more "conservative" but precisely because they still view "liberal" in the classic sense of respecting liberty. Labling and the making of broad assumptions on the basis of R or D is, particularly in the current climate, misleading and unhelpful.

Of course, here on THR, I am a "one issue" man... because THR IS A ONE ISSUE FORUM.
Last thing anyone here needs is another bilious rant against 'Communists, pagans, and lesbians' LOL. Honestly, that sort of thing really helps none of us.

chrisb507

January 31, 2013, 07:35 AM

I don't think a vote for Obama was at all unreasonable in November, 2012. He didn't put forth any anti-RKBA bills, and actually signed legislation allowing carry in national parks. Plus, gun sales grew solidly in his first term, while the number of FFLs increased.

Today after Newtown, I am sure ANY president would have to appear to be doing "something."

radiotom

January 31, 2013, 07:35 AM

I think there are a lot of things we would like to say to OP but they aren't THR.

Also, I don't really understand the point of this thread? The OP's post isn't very THR either...

Husker_Fan

January 31, 2013, 07:35 AM

This is not an effort to get this overly political, but I would bet many of those with critical responses voted for GWB. He openly said he would sign an AWB should it make it to his desk. He said this with a Democratic Congress that could have passed it. Thank goodness they didn't.

Partisans have selective memories. The Republican party had done little at the national level to promote the RKBA, other than to obstruct further restrictions for what I expect are purely political reasons.

Deltaboy

January 31, 2013, 07:39 AM

I Known plenty of TX Dems but they are different from Dems in the rest of Country.

bayesian

January 31, 2013, 07:43 AM

One of the things that I appreciate about THR (and yes, I appreciated it for a year before actually signing up...), is the general attempt to make room for people from a wide range of the population that all have interest in firearms. I have very similar feelings as the OP, 2A issues are important but there are alot of other issues that are also important.

I'm a lonely Georgia Democrat these days but I grew up in a Michigan in a solid left wing, New Deal union family that had more than its share of gun nuts as well. There's still a good number of us around.

You might be able to recognize us sometimes because we're the ones rolling our eyes when someone says:

He even seems to believe that breaking the law is OK if it helps achieve a "higher good" in his opinion, evidenced by his approval of Fast and Furious which clearly was a ploy to encourage if not force licensed gun dealers to sell illegally, so that later he could claim U.S. sold guns were fueling the Mexican cartels.

enrious

January 31, 2013, 07:43 AM

I'm a fairly moderate voter. While my vote was +1 on the Obama side, it was less a vote for Obama as much as a vote against Romney. For the first time ever, my ballot was identical - votes for (I), then (D) if there was no (I), and no vote at all if there was only (R).

And yet, I used to vote (R). I didn't leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me.

Yes, I knew that Obama could potentially make attempts to restrict RKBA, but I knew of Heller and more importantly, I knew that the House belongs to the Republicans. I can honestly say that for me, the ideal would be a split Congress, always - just for cases like this.

If those of you on the Right want me to vote with your side, put up better candidates. I'm sorry, but once you step out of the feedback loop of the Primaries, you'll see how shockingly bad all of the Republican candidates for President were this cycle.

I live in Missouri and we had Todd Akins. Todd was on the House Committee for Science. Todd demonstrated a hideously terrible grasp of Science. That's the best you can do?

Put up better candidates or stop insulting those of us who believe in RKBA but refuse to vote for your terrible candidates (because it may not be 2A they want to infringe but invariably they want to infringe on other sections of the Constitution).

Either one, please.

One more thing. Equating Liberal with Godless or Godless with Liberal is just as bad. It turns out that if you step outside the feedback loop, you can be an atheist conservative who believes in RKBA because they believe in personal freedom.

Like me.

Here's the thing, it's what I understand to be the point of the THR - I may have differing views with you about most things, but not about the RKBA. I don't view you as a lesser person for disagreeing - I welcome it because it gives me another opportunity to re-evaluate my own beliefs, but more importantly, it gives me a chance to meet someone else who has a common interest.

This shouldn't be the time for Democrat/Liberal this and Republican/Conservative that, it should be a time for inclusion, not exclusion.

Inclusion strikes me as THR.

Sam1911

January 31, 2013, 07:47 AM

I am NOT a single issue voter; it's just that the RKBA is such a polarized issue that it can easily be used as one of my litmus tests. Anti-2A tendencies generally betray an underlying antipathy to liberty and a tendency toward the statist mentality in general. Amen.

It may not be your only issue. It is, however, the starting point. Step one, check stance on RKBA. If good to go there, we maybe have a chance to agree on other issues. If not good to go on RKBA, we have nothing for you but (in the immortal words of Long John Silver), "...a cutlass and musket balls!" :)

Inebriated

January 31, 2013, 07:55 AM

2A is there to ensure the rest remain.

To vote in anyone who is openly willing to jeopardize that is beyond me.

I don't get into Rep vs. Dem, so don't take this as Dem-bashing or anything.

Flintknapper

January 31, 2013, 07:56 AM

Pretty much 'preaching to the Choir' here.....friend.

How much time have you spent on Liberal Forums making the same spill? :confused:

That is where your efforts are needed. ;)

Waywatcher

January 31, 2013, 07:57 AM

There are anti gun republicans.

There are pro gun democrats.

Pigeonholing people into parties and then judging them is going to result in unfavorable results for gun owners; there aren't enough pro gun republicans, let alone republicans, to establish a majority in the senate or take the presidency. The only way republicans got the House was through gerrymandering; house democrats nationwide received more votes than house republicans, all tallied.

We, as gun owners, need to be a bipartisan group, or we will surely lose.

*I think it is easy for people to forget Romney's AWB history, he's no friend of RKBA either.

GiorgioG

January 31, 2013, 07:58 AM

I'm not sure how anyone can be proud to be a member of either party here. The fact is neither party gives a crap about this country's long term future - all they care about is the next sound bite they can use in the next election and fundraising.

Don't believe it? Republicans doubled the national debt from 2000-2008...and Democrats are poised to do the same. So much for being the fiscally conservative party (no, 9/11 is not an excuse IMO.) Think they'll continue to back the 2nd amendment in the long run? I think that's delusional - the more concentrated urban population centers get (historically democratic), the more marginalized the pro-gun voters get...all you have to do is look at NY as a prime example...The state senate "republicans" rolled over....why? Because ultimately NYC has a 2:1 population ratio with the rest of the state (who are very much pro-gun.)

Republicans have to "reinvent" themselves for 2014-2016 (it's always about the next election), they won't turn their backs completely as they still want keep our votes...but you'll see them give in on things like universal background checks...not because they can't stop it (they can in the House.), but because all they care about is getting re-elected. That's the bottom line - every single decision, vote these politicians make is with an eye towards the next election.

As such, I have no party affiliation, because they both suck.

Neo-Luddite

January 31, 2013, 08:00 AM

I am in fact , in most cases, a single issue voter for RKBA. That isn't to say that I'd vote for someone with a platform in opposition to my beliefs in other respects. The 2nd *is* the big acid test for me.

To hm: as I remind my older family members; I didn't leave the Democratic Party ~ it left me. Never forget to remind fellow Dems that President Kennedy was a proud NRA Life-Member.

radiotom

January 31, 2013, 08:03 AM

I'm not sure how anyone can be proud to be a member of either party here. The fact is neither party gives a crap about this country's long term future - all they care about is the next sound bite they can use in the next election and fundraising.

Don't believe it? Republicans doubled the national debt from 2000-2008...and Democrats are poised to do the same. So much for being the fiscally conservative party (no, 9/11 is not an excuse IMO.) Think they'll continue to back the 2nd amendment in the long run? I think that's delusional - the more concentrated urban population centers get (historically democratic), the more marginalized the pro-gun voters get...all you have to do is look at NY as a prime example...The state senate "republicans" rolled over....why? Because ultimately NYC has a 2:1 population ratio with the rest of the state (who are very much pro-gun.)

Republicans have to "reinvent" themselves for 2014-2016 (it's always about the next election), they won't turn their backs completely as they still want keep our votes...but you'll see them give in on things like universal background checks...not because they can't stop it (they can in the House.), but because all they care about is getting re-elected. That's the bottom line - every single decision, vote these politicians make is with an eye towards the next election.

As such, I have no party affiliation, because they both suck.
This

TheGrimReaper

January 31, 2013, 08:18 AM

With all due respect, voting for someone that is openly anti-gun is not the best way to support the 2A. At this point, we all sink or swim together since you and the majority voted for this man. I did not. The only sure way is to not vote for those who are openly antigun. Sorry, but are you trying to pick a fight with those of another political persuasion? Not a THR post at all. You are not off to a good start convincing me or anyone from your tone.

Very well said Sir!

Bovice

January 31, 2013, 08:23 AM

You voted for Obama?

Then the tax increases and attacks on our rights are partially your fault. You cannot stand for what we believe in and vote how you did.

SaxonPig

January 31, 2013, 08:27 AM

The problem is that the platform of the Democrat Party, their official position, is disarmament of the citizens. The official position of the Democrat Party is to destroy the 2A. This is not arguable, it's what their platform committee has voted on and issued every election year for a long time. IMO if you ID yourself as a Democrat it's hard to distance yourself from the party's goals.

Same with Republicans, of course. This is why I call myself unaffiliated. I don't agree completely with either party.

akv3g4n

January 31, 2013, 08:31 AM

I'm independent as neither party seems to be able to support civil liberties across the board. It really bothers me.
I think that as defenders of the RKBA we really need to work hard to embrace non traditional gun owners though. There are plenty of women, LGBTs, minorities and others that can feel that they are not welcome in the club even though they enjoy shooting and feel strongly about the second amendment. The more diverse that we can make our movement, the better chance we have of securing our rights in the future. JMHO.

Madcap_Magician

January 31, 2013, 08:32 AM

You can be pro-gun and an Obama voter.

It's obvious what most here think of the wisdom of that choice, so I'm not sure if I would recommend admitting it.

But the logic is very simple: If gun rights are your most important voting issue, voting for Obama was a foolish thing to do. But if you have a lot of other issues you think are more important, and you agree with Obama on those, then it only makes sense to vote for the person with whom you agree the most, if you vote at all.

mbt2001

January 31, 2013, 08:35 AM

:scrutiny:

I'm independent as neither party seems to be able to support civil liberties across the board. It really bothers me.
I think that as defenders of the RKBA we really need to work hard to embrace non traditional gun owners though. There are plenty of women, LGBTs, minorities and others that can feel that they are not welcome in the club even though they enjoy shooting and feel strongly about the second amendment. The more diverse that we can make our movement, the better chance we have of securing our rights in the future. JMHO.

Amen...

Cesiumsponge

January 31, 2013, 08:37 AM

Sorry, but most presidents including Republicans in my lifetime have passed stricter gun laws. Both parties are guilty. Don't forget to point at your own party while you're busy ridiculing the opposing party.

Neither party is a friend of freedom. Both have made strides in different areas to curb freedoms outside of second amendment issues. You're fooled if you think you're "on the right team".

ol' scratch

January 31, 2013, 08:37 AM

I vote for Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians. The single most important issue for me is the 2nd amendment. There are pro 2nd Democrat politicians. I vote in every election and I keep track of my politicians.

I did not vote for Obama or Romney. They both supported gun control at various points. I voted for a third party. I will not vote for any politician who supports an AWB.

One thing I have said to many people regarding gun control is that if gun control isn't political suicide, why did Obama wait until his second term to unveil it? Politicians are smart. They realise that too.

Vonderek

January 31, 2013, 08:43 AM

I guess I have learned from this thread that there are differing degrees of "pro-gun". Those who think they can vote in anti-2A politicians because they agree with them on other issues are not "pro-gun" in my book and should be prepared for the consequences of their vote as those in the UK and elsewhere who did likewise. And should accept responsibility for their complicity.

JFrame

January 31, 2013, 09:01 AM

Just read the 2012 Party Platforms of the respective parties regarding the Second Amendment:

Democrat Party Platform

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

GOP Platform

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban. We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority.

Individuals within the respective parties may vary on their opinions. But when taken collectively, as a PARTY, as to which direction to take the Second Amendment (and I would argue the Constitution in general), there is no doubt that the Democrat Party is committed to weakening those rights.

.

Arkansas Paul

January 31, 2013, 09:02 AM

I'm sick and *censored* tired of the *censored* damned Liberal bashing based on a single issue when you really have a problem with ALL Liberal issues.

Actually, this is a blanket statement that in many cases, mine included, is just outright false.
I am very fiscally conservative. I am very socially liberal.
I am against entitlement programs, a lifetime culture of welfare, and too much money going to foreign aid.
At the same time, I am for gay rights, and basically the government staying out of people's personal lives altogether, as long as they're not infringing on anyone else's.

When it comes time to vote however, yes, my main focus is on the 2A.

You say you voted for Obama and then said you are concerned about your gun rights.
Sorry, but you created this problem, you shouldn't get to complain about it at all.
It would be like letting a fox live in your henhouse and then expressing concern for your chickens.

JustinJ

January 31, 2013, 09:05 AM

Unless one voted for Gary Johnson they really have no right criticizing anybodies else's presidential vote regarding gun rights.

fallout mike

January 31, 2013, 09:08 AM

Hm also voted for him bc he was going to end the wars. We have since sent troops into several other countries. Is there any reason you voted for him that he has actually accomplished? Besides not having a budget, running up the highest deficit in the history of the world, apologizing to every nation in the world for us evil americans, bowing down to every leader of every country he meets, signing the ndaa, unleashing 10,000 drones on the US citizens, this RKBA thing , fast and furious, just off the top of my head. And most of this was from the first term. Oh, and he hasn't gotten approval from congress for getting us involved in all these other skirmishes bc he says he doesn't have to bc he takes his orders from from the UN. So, apparently you were for all these things bc you voted for him again. All sounds perfectly logical to me.

bainter1212

January 31, 2013, 09:10 AM

I am a pro gun liberal. I voted for Obama the first time around, neither of the clowns the second time around. Seems that most of you are outright attacking the OP, basically saying "you're with us or you're against us". This is fallacious and illogical. Plus, what do you expect us liberals to do??? Vote for a party that thought it was OK to go to war for NO REASON????? Who thinks that legislation like the Patriot Act is somehow OK? That thinks killing americans overseas without a trial is perfectly acceptable????? That thinks telling women what to do with their bodies is somehow in accordance with "respecting individual rights"??? How about wanting to deport successful college graduates, who happen to have been brought here illegally when they were four???
While I love the Bill of Rights, the truth is the Bush administration was so abusive of their power that it pushed me WAY to the left for a very, very long time. Also, as an intellectual, the anti-intellectualism that blares from loudspeakers from the Right makes me sick to my stomach. Am I an "elitist" because I read books??? If you want pro gun liberals to switch over and vote Republican, it's a bit late. You have only yourselves to blame for that one. I will continue to vote liberal for the COUNTLESS other reasons that exist. I will continue to write my legislators asking them to respect the RKBA.
Rant over, sorry for being long winded.

Robert

January 31, 2013, 09:12 AM

Remember, we are a firearms website. Any discussion other than one focused on firearms and the RKBA are off topic and could lead to posts being deleted and the thread being locked.

fallout mike

January 31, 2013, 09:14 AM

Arkansas Paul, are you saying you are against us borrowing money from china, and then we give foreign aid to them. So, in essence, we borrow from them to give it to them, plus we have to pay back the loan to them plus interest. That sounds like a nice system to me.

JShirley

January 31, 2013, 09:14 AM

ubduly curtail

right

Cognitive dissonance. At the same time, it is annoying, tiresome, and really just stupid to frequently read posts from Christians who don't understand separating church and state, who are willing to support the rights of everyone- except those they disagree with, who automatically assume everyone here is just like them. That's not only mentally unrigorous, it shows a willingness to trample on some rights in the name of ideology.

John

fallout mike

January 31, 2013, 09:17 AM

Im not sure we are attacking the op. Just his reason for voting for him. Which his viewshas been known since before he ever ran the first time.

feedthehogs

January 31, 2013, 09:22 AM

OP,
Leave the koolaid brainwashing to sites like DU.

Leaving all other candidates aside, you voted for a guy going back to his community activism days of being anti gun and carried that thru to his reign as president. You can not convince a studied 2nd amendment supporter that voting for him and saying you support firearms is nothing but a big fat oxymoron.

It comes down to one thing and one thing only. Which candidate is going to uphold the constitution and bill of rights and not abuse and ignore them.

The rest of the issues are fodder for bored individuals looking to stomp on other peoples rights.

JFtheGR8

January 31, 2013, 09:27 AM

OP,
Leave the koolaid brainwashing to sites like DU.

Leaving all other candidates aside, you voted for a guy going back to his community activism days of being anti gun and carried that thru to his reign as president. You can not convince a studied 2nd amendment supporter that voting for him and saying you support firearms is nothing but a big fat oxymoron.

It comes down to one thing and one thing only. Which candidate is going to uphold the constitution and bill of rights and not abuse and ignore them.

The rest of the issues are fodder for bored individuals looking to stomp on other peoples rights.

Well said. I have nothing to add to that.

Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

sarge83

January 31, 2013, 09:29 AM

Without the 2nd Amendment the other amendments have no teeth. In the past you could count on the courts, media, congress or the executive branch to oppose any usurpation of our basic Rights now all are in bed to strip us of those Rights. The 2nd Amendment is the last line of defense. When it falls the others are low hanging fruit ripe to be picked by tyrants of either party when ever another Sandy Hook like event occurs. If the 2Nd Amendment dies then just wait for some terrorist event where the Internet was used and the lock down to occur. After all if it saves just one life we need to throw away all our freedoms, right...

As for the original post I know a few democrats/liberals who claim to support gun Rights but vote for those who would take those Rights away. Sort of like cutting off your nose despite your face. No need to argue with them other, it is a waste of your time and theirs.

Russ Jackson

January 31, 2013, 09:30 AM

OP,
Leave the koolaid brainwashing to sites like DU.

Leaving all other candidates aside, you voted for a guy going back to his community activism days of being anti gun and carried that thru to his reign as president. You can not convince a studied 2nd amendment supporter that voting for him and saying you support firearms is nothing but a big fat oxymoron.

It comes down to one thing and one thing only. Which candidate is going to uphold the constitution and bill of rights and not abuse and ignore them.

The rest of the issues are fodder for bored individuals looking to stomp on other peoples rights.
I cannot think of anything I could disagree with more.

Fastcast

January 31, 2013, 09:31 AM

For crying out loud, this post is one of the best reads here in a long time! Can we quit threatening (members & mods) to have it locked down? :rolleyes:

We all may learn a little something, if the politically correct crowd puts their big boy pants on for a change!

vito

January 31, 2013, 09:32 AM

In this country you have a choice of voting for a Republican, a Democrat or not voting. A vote for a third party candidate will ALWAYS be, in effect, a vote for the Republican or Democrat. Third parties do not and have not, in modern times, achieved any national significance. Sometimes their positions are incorporated into the platform of one of the major parties. So you folks who considered Romney not conservative enough, not pure enough for your liking, who then voted for some third party or just didn't vote, you actually were aiding Obama to get re-elected. Reagan said that a person who agreed with him 80% of the time is not his enemy. So if you didn't vote for Romney, you are part of the reason we have Obama for another four years. The company is slipping backwards, our foreign policy is in total disarray, government continues to grow and become more intrusive (just wait until the rest of you see the real implications of Obamacare!) and our 2nd Amendment rights are under attack. Those who claim to support the 2nd Amendment who do not vote Republican are what are called "the useful idiots of the Democrat party".

herkyguy

January 31, 2013, 09:33 AM

I am against those who wish to disregard the Constitution in any way shape or form, especially RKBA. I am not so much against democrats, but more against the progressive wing of that side that sees fit to change the very structure of our nation to fit their worldview. This falls squarely in the liberal lap, hence i often agree with the liberal bashing when they cry out that government will take care of us and we don't need guns anymore.

It comes down to whether or not one assumes responsibility for their own well being or would rather give up their rights to sleep under false pretenses of big government taking care of your problems.

In my humble opinion, those who choose the latter category are sorely misguided and un-American.

Firearms are a physical manifestation of the principles on which this nation was founded. When I talk with folks from other countries, I usually end up laughing a bit, shaking my head, and end the conversation by telling them that America is unique, we have freedoms they can't fathom, and our forefathers paid a heavy toll to give us American Exceptionalism.....a concept I strongly believe in and make no apologies for.

JustinJ

January 31, 2013, 09:38 AM

If its really about liberty why isn't there a massive organization like the NRA to restore the fourth amendment? And for those who only subscribe to media that validates their world views it was trashed by Bush with the Patriotic act and then trashed further by Obama. Unfortunately, the reality is the vast majority apparently don't care about the actual principle of liberty, in spite of how often they wrap themselves in that cloak, but only the specific liberties they value. If they did there would be a National Fourth Amendment Association but i guess since there are no massive corporations to fund it or political parties to use it for advantage we will never see one.

It comes down to one thing and one thing only. Which candidate is going to uphold the constitution and bill of rights and not abuse and ignore them.

The rest of the issues are fodder for bored individuals looking to stomp on other peoples rights.

If you happen to be gay, or a woman who wants the right to choose, or someone who believes that paying taxes means having a right to be represented...these are constitutional/bill of rights issues.

JShirley

January 31, 2013, 09:42 AM

herky,

Your 2nd sentence contradicts your 1st. Pretty sure it's not the Dems who try to fuse church back into state schools, and wanted to modify the Constitution to ensure gays were incapable of receiving certain rights.

An attack on one right is an attack on all. The red and blue just tend to attack different rights.

John

jmorris

January 31, 2013, 09:50 AM

***I voted for President Obama, as did a majority of Americans (thus, he's prez). I would eagerly vote for him again today.

***I voted for President Obama believing that he would not unduly curtail my 2nd Amendment rights.

I am interested in what restrictions a Texas Dem would call "unduly" or maybe more importantly what you would accept and still vote for Liberals in the future?

Thank you in advance for the insight.

SuperNaut

January 31, 2013, 09:55 AM

I don't care about your party affiliation, I only care if you are a member of the NRA and donate to the NRA-ILA. Anything else is partisan bull-hockey.

Godsgunman

January 31, 2013, 10:09 AM

I see what the OP is trying to say and do. I have a coworker and shooting buddy who would probably fall along the same lines. He actually has more firearms than I do and owns a couple dreaded "assault rifles". He is as pro gun as I am but thats one of the few things we see eye to eye on. But here's the problem especially this election, there was NO true 2A candidate. We had Romney who had already passed strict gun laws and we had Obama who everyone knew was waiting for a 2nd term to push his anti-2A agenda. No win situation. So we had to truly vote for the lesser of 2 evils. I personally feel it was all a setup to begin with when Romney got the nod, a lukewarm, wish-washy candidate. It came down to the other issues which anyone with only one eye open could see that Obama is bad for this country on all levels. Unfortunately though I believe the high ups in the Republican party stabbed us all in the back and no matter who would have been voted in we would still be dealing with this 2A attack. However you can't vote for a candidate of a party that has always been for gun control and against certain Constitutional rights and then cry foul when that person does exactly what the party stands for. Especially when that candidate has ALWAYS spoken out against it and its taken no one with a rational brain by surprise.

BHP FAN

January 31, 2013, 10:23 AM

''I voted for President Obama, as did a majority of Americans (thus, he's prez). I would eagerly vote for him again today...''

the definition of insanity, is to repeat the same action, expecting different results.

bainter1212

January 31, 2013, 10:34 AM

No, repeating the same action and expecting different results is called PRACTICE. You know, like throwing a baseball 1000 times makes you a better thrower or playing your sax for hours makes you a better musician.
Stupidest quote ever.

Manny

January 31, 2013, 10:36 AM

If the Democrat party were the party it used to be back in Harry Trumans time and Liberals were still liberal in the classic sense of supporting MORE freedom than I might well be able to vote in D column sometime. Neither is the case anymore though. The Dem party OF TODAY is hard left, politically correct, gun banning/gun confiscating run by the most radically left elements we have ever seen in our nations history.

I ask all here to think about if this had happened at the beginning of Obama's FIRST term when he had super-majoritys in both the house and the senate. The Finestein bill wouldn't be a subject of debate, it would have already been passed. THATS why I can't support Dems as much as the R's often tee me off.

I truely believe that the communistic and fascist elements we as a nation battled against in WWII and since have insidiously taken over at least intellectually the press, unions, academia and the current day Democrat party and are now pursuing their agenda from inside those institutions.

I am NOT saying that any individual member of the above groups would recognize or claim allegience to the communist or fascistic partys. Most undoubtedly believe themselves to patriotic americans, who support organizations and/or professions, the leadership of which are systematically undermining the concept of individual freedom and liberty this nation was founded on and our Constitution was written to protect.

I am also not exempting the R's from culpability in our march to destruction, lots of bad there too, but there are more supporters by far of our tradtional values than the D's.

youngda9

January 31, 2013, 10:37 AM

No, repeating the same action and expecting different results is called PRACTICE. You know, like throwing a baseball 1000 times makes you a better thrower or playing your sax for hours makes you a better musician.
Stupidest quote ever.
Taking away our rights and sending us to financial ruin is something we just need to keep on "practicing"...Wow, just wow.

hm

January 31, 2013, 10:39 AM

Wow...just wow. What a great discussion!

I don't think there's much more I can add that hasn't already been said, but I will address some of the sentiments y'all wrote about.

First and foremost, huge Thank You's to the Mods for trusting us to stay on-track and allowing this great discussion!

To "jmorris" I'll say that, to me, "unduly" means preventing law-abiding citizens from owning handguns, rifles and shotguns. I do not, however, believe that criminal and mental health background checks upon purchasing a firearm are an infringement of my rights, just as long as the government that is performing the background check is an elected one accountable to We The People via legitimate elections. In short, don't limit my mag cap, but do make sure I'm not cuckoo before letting me have an AR-15.

Just so you all know, I do contact my gov't reps, in writing, identifying myself as a Dem and fervently pro-2A. Especially when the rep I'm writing to is a Dem, I urge them to support 2A as well. And, by the way, I have long been a member of an organization called Democrats for Gun Ownership. They are a national organization that has a presence in DC and supports pro-2A Dems. In other words, I agree with those of you who assert that I need to be talking up Pro-2A to my fellow Dems more than dueling with Republicans. Especially in the wake of recent shootings that received a lot of media attention, I have increased my pro-2A letter-writing (politicians & newspaper editor).

My overall thoughts on all the replies is this: Some people still seem to see the world in black and white...all or nothing. But most of the posts (whether or not you happen to agree with my rationale) show that the majority of members on THR see the real shades of gray in the world. I love this board even more now.

CZ-75BD

January 31, 2013, 10:45 AM

OP just little confused, not to say confused big time.
He knew that BHO was anti-gun from begging and Democratic party is anti-gun too.
But he is devoted democrat and it is his way of life. Can we blame his for that. No because it is still "free" country yet and he entailed to have his own opinion and believes.
That's huge dilemma...Problem not to what party you belong, this day not GOP or Dem's are absolute right. They both have unacceptable problems. Problem is ideology used by liberals and that never worked in good way. I mentioned already that I'm from former Russia, and I know that hard way. Liberal ideology that a problem and that makes people believe in "ideal society" witch is never an option in reality .

rtroha

January 31, 2013, 10:48 AM

I also voted for him because of other issues I believe in, like Social Security, Foreign Policy (ending our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), Equal Rights (like gays in the military and equal pay for women), and accountability to the middle class on Wall Street.

So when you listed all your issues in order of importance, where did RKBA come in at? Around #10?

Sam1911

January 31, 2013, 10:50 AM

...letting me have an AR-15."Letting me...?" Oh, isn't it just peachy-keen when the government LETS ME have something I'm Constitutionally assured is my right to be able to own?

I understand that we do have background checks and such, for now ... but the underlying philosophy of asking the government "Mommy may I?" is nauseating and despicable. Screening my fellow citizens who are free and walking the streets is not something I ask, nor trust, my government to do.

phil dirt

January 31, 2013, 10:52 AM

I have doubt about anyone, gun owner or not, who would vote for Obama, the most radical President in the history of the USA. And, I have contempt for gun owners who refuse to support the NRA. The NRA is the only reason we still have a viable Second Amendment today.

hm

January 31, 2013, 10:56 AM

Sam1911,

You know, I actually thought about my wording before writing that, but didn't think anyone would truly read some sinister looney left conspiracy into it. I'm disappointed to see that I was wrong.

youngda9

January 31, 2013, 10:57 AM

Sam1911,

You know, I actually thought about my wording before writing that, but didn't think anyone would truly read some sinister looney left conspiracy into it. I'm disappointed to see that I was wrong.
Words DO have meaning hm...

browneu

January 31, 2013, 10:57 AM

I have doubt about anyone, gun owner or not, who would vote for Obama, the most radical President in the history of the USA. And, I have contempt for gun owners who refuse to support the NRA. The NRA is the only reason we still have a viable Second Amendment today.

Correct, why wouldn't you support the NRA? If not the NRA some other pro gun organization. Especially for your ability to support an anti gun president over and over again.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Justin

January 31, 2013, 11:00 AM

My view (and I'm absolutely right about this) is that being pro-2A has become synonymous with being a Conservative Republican in ALL regards for ALL issues.

While it's all well and good that you're a pro-gun Democrat, it doesn't change the fact that the party leadership are virulently anti-gun.

There's plenty of pro-gun Dems, it's a pity that none of them (with the single exception being Harry Reid) actually wield any influence within the party.

Cesiumsponge

January 31, 2013, 11:00 AM

Somewhere on the DU, there is an thread with a gun-hating member who voted for Romney and Obama supporters screaming, "a vote for a third party is a vote for Romney".

Try again.

Fishslayer

January 31, 2013, 11:02 AM

***I am not a single-issue voter, although the 2nd Amendment is a major issue for me.

***I voted for President Obama, as did a majority of Americans (thus, he's prez). I would eagerly vote for him again today.

A person's opinion of the 2A is usually a good barometer of where that persons stands on the rest of our rights and the citizen/.gov relationship in general. Our leftists in Sacramento didn't get elected for their 2A views.

***I voted for President Obama believing that he would not unduly curtail my 2nd Amendment rights.

That's OK. A lot of people actually voted for our Gov. Moonbeam believing he was PRO 2A.:banghead:

I can see where you went wrong though. BHO was such a rabid supporter of gun rights in the Senate for the brief time he was there...

fallout mike

January 31, 2013, 11:03 AM

The constitution is all or nothing!! It is black and white! !! There is no gray!! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!! Where is the gray?

gossamer

January 31, 2013, 11:10 AM

I too am a VERY Liberal and voted for Obama twice. I also am the President of my own Corporation which means I own a small business which I've run for two decades (the most successful 4 years of which came from '08-'12), I grew up in a very religious Catholic household, I am an Eagle Scout. I also happen to be staunchly pro-gay rights, pro 2A, own as many guns as I can afford and don't support any AWB, BG checks, etc..

I agree with you and am glad you wrote what you wrote and support the pro-2A cause. I support this cause not because of something as petty as political ideology. Nor do I even support it PRIMARILY because it's something guaranteed as a right under the constitution. My reason for supporting it are two fold.

1) From a sheer practicality and utility standpoint, the best method man has invented for personal defense and protection of self and others is the firearm. The evidence for this is the millions and millions of men and women all over the world who have professionally and non-professionally defended themselves and protected themselves with firearms.

2) I see my possession and use of firearms for defense of self and others closely linked to my sense of community. Protecting my family and our home is not self-contained. It ripples out into my community because my responsibility as an owner and user of firearms means I always have to be vigilant, aware of my surroundings, and in control of my faculties. Because if I'm not, my defense could have dire consequences for others. My job is to make sure that the effect of those ripples is ALWAYS ALWAYS positive. I also find that my advocacy for 2A benefits other in my community by helping them to defend themselves and their family. I see it as, if I do not do my job, someone else is n my community may be deprived of their own self defense.

So for me, being Pro-RKBA fits naturally into the communitarian beliefs that undergird my Liberal political ideology.

Many people on THR are going to try to shoot down (no pun intended) your rationale and try to convince you you are wrong for being a Liberal. But then, I find that like anywhere in this world, many people here don't seem to accept other peoples' points of view as acceptable simply because the disagree with them. They think it's their place to argue with you about your outlook.

What you've done here is move into a Conservative neighborhood and put up an Obama yard sign. There will be lumps. But, I hope people show you the respect you deserve that comes along with the VERY American and very CONSERVATIVE ideal of individualism. I'm sure if I read the preceding 4 pages of comments in this thread my hope will be dashed.

But a man's gotta have hope. (let the petty make some political snark about that word -- if I gave a <deleted> I wouldn't have used it.)

In other words, good on you, HM.

vito

January 31, 2013, 11:14 AM

Because there is not a large public concern with how the government is or is not violating the 4th as there is with the 2nd.

2ifbyC

January 31, 2013, 11:16 AM

My view (and I'm absolutely right about this) is that being pro-2A has become synonymous with being a Conservative Republican in ALL regards for ALL issues.

The tone you lay out for your position has a lot to do with the rebuttal you will receive. This one sentence alone is sure to evoke criticism of your entire platform. There are no absolutes; just one differing view blows your whole premise out the window.

Back on point. I agree that to win the war on RKBA, votes from both Democrats and Republicans are needed. Have you written your representatives and ask that they support no new gun laws? If they do not support the 2A, do you plan on voting them out of office? If not, then your passion for the 2A is hollow. If you have, then welcome to our camp.

gossamer

January 31, 2013, 11:16 AM

If its really about liberty why isn't there a massive organization like the NRA to restore the fourth amendment? And for those who only subscribe to media that validates their world views it was trashed by Bush with the Patriotic act and then trashed further by Obama. Unfortunately, the reality is the vast majority apparently don't care about the actual principle of liberty, in spite of how often they wrap themselves in that cloak, but only the specific liberties they value. If they did there would be a National Fourth Amendment Association but i guess since there are no massive corporations to fund it or political parties to use it for advantage we will never see one.
Very well put. There are more than just the 2nd Amendment. But constituencies for those are hard to come by. Ones with money, less so.

Cesiumsponge

January 31, 2013, 11:23 AM

People in general are very narrow-minded and unaccepting of others that differ. Doesn't matter what political party, philosophy, religion, or cause you take. Welcome to tribalism.

fallout mike

January 31, 2013, 11:29 AM

Im accepting of anyones views. But when you explain your reasons for them for the love of God at least make it sound like you know what you are talking about. Most of the responses here is exactly for this reason. Its contradictory to say the least. And seeing that this is a public forum, you start threads with the expectation of receiving feedback. All kinds.

gossamer

January 31, 2013, 11:35 AM

Just read the 2012 Party Platforms of the respective parties regarding the Second Amendment:

Individuals within the respective parties may vary on their opinions. But when taken collectively, as a PARTY, as to which direction to take the Second Amendment (and I would argue the Constitution in general), there is no doubt that the Democrat Party is committed to weakening those rights.

.
And yet NEITHER candidate for POTUS in the last two elections has been in lockstep with their respective parties platforms on 2A (or many other issues).

fallout mike

January 31, 2013, 11:40 AM

I would be arguing nearly the same things had Romney won. The 2 party system is a colossal failure at this point.

Akita1

January 31, 2013, 11:42 AM

My 2 cents:

The BOR does not carry a multiple choice option. The trick is in the execution, which is abhorrent in the history of our beloved Republic.

Shed your party affiliation, become an Independent and make choices based upon the merits or weaknesses of issues/positions, versus the platforms of ideology. Being a liberal does not mean you HAVE to label yourself a Democrat (and vice versa) or align yourself with absolutist ideology.

Logic is the BEGINNING go wisdom, not the end (thank you Spock).

gossamer

January 31, 2013, 11:42 AM

You say you voted for Obama and then said you are concerned about your gun rights.
Sorry, but you created this problem, you shouldn't get to complain about it at all.
It would be like letting a fox live in your henhouse and then expressing concern for your chickens.

So can I take it you voted for Mitt Romney? The only candidate for president in 2012 with a history of actually passing an assault weapons ban.

On the single issue of 2A in 2012 we had a choice between a guy who supported and AWB and one who signed one and supported it. But yeah, voting for Obama was the real culprit...:rolleyes:

JFrame

January 31, 2013, 11:45 AM

And yet NEITHER candidate for POTUS in the last two elections has been in lockstep with their respective parties platforms on 2A (or many other issues).

Again -- I use the term "collectively." Which party leader is more likely to have an easier time rallying his respective party to a strong anti-2A position?

I'm not offering absolutes, but just looking at the two party platforms, I find more reason for confidence with one than the other.

.

breakingcontact

January 31, 2013, 11:51 AM

I thought we didn't do right vs left and/or politics?

I've never been a Dem, but used to understand the conservative democrats. No longer, merely being an elected official in that party strengthens the party overall and puts them in leadership positions.

Can't have it both ways. If you're a conservative democrat, need to come on over to the right where you belong.

I don't care for most of the politicians in DC or the whole two party corporate/union backed system either.

Thankfully I'm in Texas. Rick Perry for President of Texas.

gossamer

January 31, 2013, 11:51 AM

Again -- I use the term "collectively." Which party leader is more likely to have an easier time rallying his respective party to a strong anti-2A position?

I'm not offering absolutes, but just looking at the two party platforms, I find more reason for confidence with one than the other.

.

I find that through history both party leaders have had a very easy time of rejecting the respective platforms when it suited them yet have problems rallying their respective far-wings to do the same.

fallout mike

January 31, 2013, 11:51 AM

Gossamer, there were other candidates for president. Some people vote on values and not the lesser of 2 evils. This is why we have a 2 party system. Its all a horse and pony show. Choice 1 wants to take x away, choice 2 wants to take x & y away. Gosh, I guess ill vote for #1. Many people vote this way bc they don't even know there are more people running, maybe even you considering you just assumed Paul voted for Romney. The MSM doesn't even hardly acknowledge any other candidate besides D or R. This is not how it should be.

JFrame

January 31, 2013, 12:01 PM

I find that through history both party leaders have had a very easy time of rejecting the respective platforms when it suited them yet have problems rallying their respective far-wings to do the same.

Honestly -- I don't know what party you're looking at, but you don't think that the far wing of the Democrat Party is driving their policies?

.

Arkansas Paul

January 31, 2013, 12:03 PM

No, repeating the same action and expecting different results is called PRACTICE. You know, like throwing a baseball 1000 times makes you a better thrower or playing your sax for hours makes you a better musician.
Stupidest quote ever.

Yeah, that Einstein guy was a drooling moron. What notable thing did he ever do? :rolleyes:

So can I take it you voted for Mitt Romney?

You can take whatever you like, but it doesn't make it true.
There were more than 2 candidates on my ballot, not just the jackass and the elephant.

Sam1911

January 31, 2013, 12:04 PM

...but didn't think anyone would truly read some sinister looney left conspiracy into it. I'm disappointed to see that I was wrong.I didn't mean to imply conspiracy at all. My point is to illustrate and rebuke the underlying philosophy.

Is this something the government SHOULD be doing for "US"? No. It is not. The founders did not intend it, with grave and significant reason, and we do not need or want it now.

The government needs to be OUT of the business of controlling arms.

Njal Thorgeirsson

January 31, 2013, 12:11 PM

Although I didn't read all 5 pages of responses here, I read the first and I have realized that I am probably in the minority of people who respect your opinion.

I agree with all of what you said, actually (although I would not vote for obama). I have no problems with medically-related background checks [although I will wouldn't be a supporter- im sort of indifferent]. I don't believe more rigorous checks could in any way be a step in the direction of gun registration- which every reasonable person should certainly oppose.

What if obama isn't even all that anti-gun? I mean he didn't include anything in his executive orders to restrict gun rights by anyone's interpretation- he just allowed a silly assault weapons ban proposal to move on through- which will almost certainly not pass. It seems like he did the only thing he could to please all the anti-gunners out there, whilst also not doing anything to gravely endanger the state of the 2nd amendment rights.

DeepSouth

January 31, 2013, 12:12 PM

Fellow gun owners and activists,

First know this...I'm with you on RKBA for sane, red-blooded Americans from the start. I've been on THR for 10 years as an advocate for 2A. I own multiple so-called "assault" weapons, handguns, shotguns, etc...

Yeah, this may be daring (and/or asking for trouble), but as a Texas Democrat, I want to make my voice heard on behalf of many other Dems.

I state the following hoping to remove a lot of the anti-Liberal non-2A crap I've been seeing over the years...both here on THR and from the NRA, of which I am proudly NOT a member. I know it's an uphill climb, but I won't stop until I've convinced everyone.

***I am not a single-issue voter, although the 2nd Amendment is a major issue for me.

***I voted for President Obama, as did a majority of Americans (thus, he's prez). I would eagerly vote for him again today.

***I voted for President Obama believing that he would not unduly curtail my 2nd Amendment rights.

I laughed out loud (literally) and stopped reading, because you are either illogical or willfully ignorant. Either way I have nothing to listen to. Sorry.

BTW:
If you were an NRA member you might have known what BHO said he would do in his second term.

Yo Mama

January 31, 2013, 12:14 PM

In short, don't limit my mag cap, but do make sure I'm not cuckoo before letting me have an AR-15.

How do you define cuckoo?

mnhntr

January 31, 2013, 12:18 PM

IMHO it does matter what party you associate with. I consider myself a libertarian however I have disagreements with all parties. I vote 90% Republican however I am athiest and pro choice on abortion. All that said I believe that the democrats have shifted too much. My grandfather was a DFL supporter because he was a farmer. IMHO the DFL and democrats on the hill are more interested in seeing the enslavement of the majority in order to ensure the votes. If you look at all the entitlement programs and how they operate. They are incentivised to keep people on the government dollar. Also your statement about the MAJORITY of Americans voting for Nobama is true but misguided. They MAJORITY of voters voted for free stuff and not because they know the issues or the repercussions of the issues. All you have to do is ask the MAJORITY of the people who voted for Nobama why they did or what the budget is or what the process is for a bill to become a law and you will hear crickets.

fallout mike

January 31, 2013, 12:18 PM

Cuckoo- having ammo stored in waterproof containers. Having more than 2 weeks of food in your house.

GiorgioG

January 31, 2013, 12:18 PM

The government needs to be OUT of the business of controlling arms.

What one believes the government needs to be OUT of the business of is subjective...guns, abortion, gay rights, social services, religion, corporate welfare, etc...

I think the one thing to take away from this discussion is, we all have a variety of political beliefs (and we should respect them), but we all believe in the RTKBA. Right? Now let's stop arguing amongst ourselves...there are plenty of other more useful things to do ;)

Moderators...close this up?

DDawg

January 31, 2013, 12:19 PM

" I know it's an uphill climb, but I won't stop until I've convinced everyone."

Here lies my problem with the vast majority of liberals. They seem to feel that if everyone doesn't agree with 'their' beliefs; then everyone should be 'forced' to agree with thier liberal believe system.

ETXhiker

January 31, 2013, 12:28 PM

If you side with the Statists, you're no friend to the 2A no matter what you choose to tell yourself.

Bingo. As a Texan also, I know lots of otherwise reasonable people who still vote Democrat, because they can't or won't accept how much their party has changed in the last couple of decades. The dems are now the party of Statism and have no respect for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Sadly, lots of Republicans in Washington aren't much better, but with new people like Ted Cruz joining their ranks I am hoping to see that change.

Our 2nd Amendment rights are the rights which guarantee all others. To vote for someone who is openly an enemy of those rights is foolish in the extreme. Your vote for Obama does more damage than any verbal support for the RKBA can make up for.

Fastcast

January 31, 2013, 12:38 PM

Both parties are beyond corrupt and believe in trampling rights. To believe voting lock step with one side or the other will somehow ensure your 2A, life, liberty, wealth and happiness is naive.

Either parties candidate can, will and do change their ideology on a whim. All one can do is vote what you know of today about each candidates past voting record, that you'll be putting your check mark by. Tomorrow has no guarantees.

May I suggest, stop worry about R's & D's and vote for the candidates that have a steadfast record of supporting 2A....as others have said, it's the measuring stick. If your local candidate is new, call their HQ and get their views on 2A, AWB, Hi-Cap mags, etc. If there's any wavering, there's your sign.

I don't do parties, I'm an independent thinker and don't need no stinking D or R establishment telling me whose side I must be on or who to vote for. They both speak with forked tongues! :evil:

Voting is like a chess match, one well thought out move at a time, trying to avoid annihilation.....Couldn't stand my congressman besides his 2A view but assumed I could at least count on him for that and with the dreaded thought that Obama might get a 2nd term, I knew the congress was gonna be important to stop any 2A assaults.....so I held my nose and sacrificed (like a pawn) some of my less important views and checked his box.

Meta

January 31, 2013, 12:42 PM

The destruction of this country will not come because of banning guns, it will come when a culture of dependency is so strong, and a hostility towards achievement and wealth becomes so great, that the country self implodes under the crushing weight of the state. The Democrats are wholly invested in the strategy to commit as many people to the agenda of dependency on the state. It's really that simple. They've succeeded with the black vote, now it's time for Hispanics. Fast forward a generation or so to the time when the governement cannot keep it's promises to all of it's dependants and you'll have a whole lot of very, very bad things happening. At that point the constitution will be a speed bump and law and order will be at the end of the fascist's gun barrel. All democracies end this way, sorry. We HAD a republic, governed by laws and the constitution but we started chipping away at that around the time Woodrow Wilson was around. Mob rule here we come.

GiorgioG

January 31, 2013, 12:50 PM

Here lies my problem with the vast majority of liberals. They seem to feel that if everyone doesn't agree with 'their' beliefs; then everyone should be 'forced' to agree with thier liberal believe system.

Labeling people left/right, conservative/liberal is an oversimplification that does no one justice and doesn't create constructive discussions. I am fiscally conservative and I believe the government should stay the hell out of private life/decisions (gay rights, abortion, gun laws, religion, etc.)

How do you label me (and the many folks like me?) Like it or not, we're here...and everyday there are more of us.

Yo Mama

January 31, 2013, 12:52 PM

Both parties are beyond corrupt and believe in trampling rights. To believe voting lock step with one side or the other will somehow ensure your 2A, life, liberty, wealth and happiness is naive.

OP voted for Obama. OP is from Texas. ALL of Texas electoral votes went to Romney. As far as his one vote was concerned, it made no difference at all.

Takem406

January 31, 2013, 12:54 PM

You contradict yourself, sir.

The arrogance of this statement and much of your post is so typical of liberals. It's 'my way or the highway'. You will NEVER convince everyone of anything. Frankly, you should set the goal of convincing ONE person of what you believe. Good luck with that.

Hahaha you can't truly support freedom and not be an NRA member or at least SAF. The NRA has many faults but so do I and everyone else. Do they need to change how they rate elected officials? Obviously because that's there big fault.

If you still can't stand the NRA then SAF is amazing. I've been a member for years and between them and ILA they are leading the fight.

If you can't stand either might as well join the Brady Campaign!

In God and Glock we Trust

herkyguy

January 31, 2013, 12:58 PM

herky,

Your 2nd sentence contradicts your 1st. Pretty sure it's not the Dems who try to fuse church back into state schools, and wanted to modify the Constitution to ensure gays were incapable of receiving certain rights.

An attack on one right is an attack on all. The red and blue just tend to attack different rights.

John
point taken.

I used "liberals" since that was the party under discussion in the thread. I would consider myself an independent. I've voted for both dems and the GOP in the past, although not for BO in either election. I have disagreements with both parties, but see the liberal progressive group as the greatest current threat.

I wholeheartedly agree that our problems are far more complex than a simple red vs. blue. And yes, to your point, an attack on one is an attack on all.

6.5x55swedish

January 31, 2013, 12:59 PM

Good post HM. I am with you.

Romney was more anti-gun than Obama is... His own words and actions have confirmed that.

Republican Rep Pat Llodra is pushing for a ban on all "assault weapons" and testified Yesterday that they do not belong in civilian hands.

kerreckt

January 31, 2013, 12:59 PM

I agree with much of what the OP stated. Not all but much. Many want to portray President Obama as being anti-gun and I will agree with that. I heard many people saying that they were going to vote for Mitt Romney because of Obama's stance on guns. I found this to be laughable because as governor of Mass. Romney signed most if not every anti gun bill that came before him. You can't honestly say that about Obama. I don't believe he has signed any anti gun bills although there is much talk that he will. There is a reason why Mass. is one of the most anti gun states and Mitt Romney deserves much of the credit. To give Obama credit he stated his position on guns which I don't agree with. I can accept that much easier than I can accept someone who says what he thinks that particular audience wants to hear and then lies about his record. I voted for neither of these men but have much more respect for someone who consistently states the same thing regardless of the audience. Obama is bad but Romney would have been disastrous based on his past record which is public record no matter how much he lies about it. We are in the frying pan but avoided the fire.

Phatty

January 31, 2013, 01:01 PM

I, like many other members here, have very diverse political views and don't match up issue for issue with either party. I fully understand that people may vote based on a wide range of issues and not just a single issue.

So, when the OP states that the 2A right is just one of many issues that he considers before voting -- I can understand that. However, in the case of President Obama, that viewpoint only makes sense if the OP is willing to completely forego the 2A right altogether in exchange for electing a president that lines up more closely on other issues.

People seem to forget that only a single vote on the Supreme Court was the difference between us currently having a 2A right at all. If the four "liberal" members of the Supreme Court had their way, none of us would even have a 2A right. Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor, voted against the 2A right in McDonald v. Chicago. Without a doubt, Obama's other nominee, Justice Kagan, would do likewise if given the chance. God forbid one of the pro-2A justices dies in the next couple of years, Obama will put another anti-2A judge on the Supreme Court. That will tip the scales and you can say "so long" to your 2A rights.

gossamer

January 31, 2013, 01:02 PM

Honestly -- I don't know what party you're looking at, but you don't think that the far wing of the Democrat Party is driving their policies?

.

The ACTUAL far-left, gun-grabber wing of the Democratic party -- not the one the uninformed love to think Obama is a part of, but the ACTUAL Liberal wing -- actively calls for and wants Obama and others to stand firm for a repeal of 2A and MUCH stronger restrictions. They want the Obama DOJfind a way to shift interpretations of 2A back to the "Militia" interpretation that both the NRA and Federal Government were fine with prior to GWB/Ashcroft changing the Executive position and Heller finding otherwise.

So, no. I get to read a lot of what the far-left wing of the party really wants in the gun debate. Read Daily Kos. The far-left wing of the party is obviously not driving these policies because these polices are - by their horror - far too "timid" and allow too much gun ownership. They were apoplectic that Obama's EAs didn't go far enough to curtail 2A for citizens.

The fact is, even the center-left of the party (of which, if you look at his actions in total any reasonable-thinking student of political history would agree Obama is a member) has been pushing for what's on the gun-control agenda now. The wing wants it way worse for us.

feedthehogs

January 31, 2013, 01:03 PM

I too am a VERY Liberal and voted for Obama twice. I also am the President of my own Corporation which means I own a small business which I've run for two decades (the most successful 4 years of which came from '08-'12), I grew up in a very religious Catholic household, I am an Eagle Scout. I also happen to be staunchly pro-gay rights, pro 2A, own as many guns as I can afford and don't support any AWB, BG checks, etc..

I agree with you and am glad you wrote what you wrote and support the pro-2A cause. I support this cause not because of something as petty as political ideology. Nor do I even support it PRIMARILY because it's something guaranteed as a right under the constitution. My reason for supporting it are two fold.

1) From a sheer practicality and utility standpoint, the best method man has invented for personal defense and protection of self and others is the firearm. The evidence for this is the millions and millions of men and women all over the world who have professionally and non-professionally defended themselves and protected themselves with firearms.

2) I see my possession and use of firearms for defense of self and others closely linked to my sense of community. Protecting my family and our home is not self-contained. It ripples out into my community because my responsibility as an owner and user of firearms means I always have to be vigilant, aware of my surroundings, and in control of my faculties. Because if I'm not, my defense could have dire consequences for others. My job is to make sure that the effect of those ripples is ALWAYS ALWAYS positive. I also find that my advocacy for 2A benefits other in my community by helping them to defend themselves and their family. I see it as, if I do not do my job, someone else is n my community may be deprived of their own self defense.

So for me, being Pro-RKBA fits naturally into the communitarian beliefs that undergird my Liberal political ideology.

Many people on THR are going to try to shoot down (no pun intended) your rationale and try to convince you you are wrong for being a Liberal. But then, I find that like anywhere in this world, many people here don't seem to accept other peoples' points of view as acceptable simply because the disagree with them. They think it's their place to argue with you about your outlook.

What you've done here is move into a Conservative neighborhood and put up an Obama yard sign. There will be lumps. But, I hope people show you the respect you deserve that comes along with the VERY American and very CONSERVATIVE ideal of individualism. I'm sure if I read the preceding 4 pages of comments in this thread my hope will be dashed.

But a man's gotta have hope. (let the petty make some political snark about that word -- if I gave a <deleted> I wouldn't have used it.)

In other words, good on you, HM.
I don't know if you realize it but in your first paragraph your background and beliefs and actions all contradict themselves.
Not untypical of the supposed pro gun current president voters.

JRH6856

January 31, 2013, 01:08 PM

The destruction of this country will not come because of banning guns, it will come when a culture of dependency is so strong, and a hostility towards achievement and wealth becomes so great, that the country self implodes under the crushing weight of the state. The Democrats are wholly invested in the strategy to commit as many people to the agenda of dependency on the state. It's really that simple. They've succeeded with the black vote, now it's time for Hispanics. Fast forward a generation or so to the time when the governement cannot keep it's promises to all of it's dependants and you'll have a whole lot of very, very bad things happening. At that point the constitution will be a speed bump and law and order will be at the end of the fascist's gun barrel. All democracies end this way, sorry. We HAD a republic, governed by laws and the constitution but we started chipping away at that around the time Woodrow Wilson was around. Mob rule here we come.

^^^This!

But it is a Progressive/statist agenda, not Liberal or Democrat. And lets not forget that our first Progressive President was a Republican — Theodore Roosevelt.

Phatty

January 31, 2013, 01:10 PM

Romney was more anti-gun than Obama is... His own words and actions have confirmed that.
Romney is no hero to gun rights and may even be "anti-gun" as you mention, but I disagree that he is more anti-gun than Obama (is it possible to be more anti-gun than a person wanting a total gun ban?).

But, a good point was made earlier in this thread that President Romney may have resulted in a worse outcome. Although I don't believe that Romney would have come out as strongly against guns as Obama did after the Sandy Hook shooting, he would have readily compromised with the gun grabbers. The Republicans in Congress would be more willing to go along with a president in their own party than they are with Obama. Even if some Republicans are inclined to vote in favor of some new gun restrictions, they probably fear the repercussions back home from people accusing them of going along with Obama. That fear would be much less if they were simply going along with a Republican president.

and the unPatriot Act was brought to us by whom? That's right, the other side. Both sides want every last bastion of liberty, all in the guise that they want to protect us. FEAR, FEAR, FEAR :uhoh:

gossamer

January 31, 2013, 01:15 PM

I don't know if you realize it but in your first paragraph your background and beliefs and actions all contradict themselves.
Not untypical of the supposed pro gun current president voters.

Gee. No. I had no idea! Thanks for pointing out that it is possible for a person to have diverse and varied interests and priorities that do not easily pigeon-hole them neatly into one political camp so it's more convenient to ridicule them.

How is it possible someone can be liberal and still own their own successful business? Surely it must be a contradiction I haven't thought about for the last 20 years as I've signed both the front and back of my paychecks and signed employee paychecks every week. Maybe I just missed it because I was too busy having the best financial success I've ever had over the last 5 year -- much better than the previous 8.

I own several guns, have a CCW and support RKBA and yet it's not the only thing I care about when I vote? How can this be possible?

I grew up Catholic and yet I think the church is as wrong on their stance on a woman's right to choose and gay rights as they were to cover up the priests who molested my friends when they were boys.

Yeah, it's a contradiction. Because I find that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Emerson, Self Reliance

6.5x55swedish

January 31, 2013, 01:17 PM

The point that many of you are missing is that fact that Obama isn't a Dictator, his power as President is limited. Those of us who vote Democrat, but also are pro A2, take into consideration the balance of power when we cast a vote.

If Romney had won; our A2 rights would be in far more danger than they are right now. Many on the right oppose Obama just for the sake of Opposing him. many of the Bush policies they supported they started opposing as soon as Obama was putting those policies forward. Romney would have pushed for tighter gun regulations in the current climate, make no bets against that... and many of those Rs that are silent now would have signed right up.

Remember all the Executive Order rhetoric that was flying around a month ago? How many were saying that Obama was going to bi-pass congress and grab our guns? Guess what? You were wrong on that just like many of us left leaning gun owners stated. Not a single one of the 23 Executive Orders he signed grab anybodies guns or bi-passed Congress.

Sometimes I think Voters should be subject to a Government comprehension exam prior to voting... It is a shame we allow people who know nothing about our governmental system elect representative who also know nothing about our Governmental system.

The RKBA is not a belief system. It’s a right that is part of the Bill of Rights, the collective amendments to the US Constitution. Each of these rights has equal weight; no one has the authority to disregard any one unilaterally.

So are we forcing antis to abide by the Constitution? Yes, we most certainly are.

shaggy430

January 31, 2013, 01:17 PM

But, a good point was made earlier in this thread that President Romney may have resulted in a worse outcome. Although I don't believe that Romney would have come out as strongly against guns as Obama did after the Sandy Hook shooting, he would have readily compromised with the gun grabbers. The Republicans in Congress would be more willing to go along with a president in their own party than they are with Obama. Even if some Republicans are inclined to vote in favor of some new gun restrictions, they probably fear the repercussions back home from people accusing them of going along with Obama. That fear would be much less if they were simply going along with a Republican president.

Never thought about it that way. Good point.

HOOfan_1

January 31, 2013, 01:17 PM

A post with politics that go beyong RKBA...made it to 6 pages....WOW.

I am not a 1 issue voter either, but being a Libertarian, and being that our country is a firmly entrenched 2 party system, I have to pick the issues I am most interested in...and RKBA is pretty much at the top of my list. I just can not abide the liberal wing of the Democratic Party...they erode the rights I hold most dear.

blarby

January 31, 2013, 01:20 PM

One more thing. Equating Liberal with Godless or Godless with Liberal is just as bad. It turns out that if you step outside the feedback loop, you can be an atheist conservative who believes in RKBA because they believe in personal freedom.

Or, liberal atheist who is pro RKBA :what:

I may have differing views with you about most things, but not about the RKBA. I don't view you as a lesser person for disagreeing

Thats the problem, just about everyone does.

This shouldn't be the time for Democrat/Liberal this and Republican/Conservative that, it should be a time for inclusion, not exclusion.

Inclusion strikes me as THR.

Hear hear. Spread that gospel. Get used to post #25, however- if you aren't already.

We, as gun owners, need to be a bipartisan group, or we will surely lose.

Read the wall- apparently not. We can afford to exclude anyone we choose. If worse comes to worse, we'll just shoot our way to freedom.

"Bipartisan" ? No thanks. Just "Tryharderson".

An attack on one right is an attack on all. The red and blue just tend to attack different rights.

THIS ! ^^^^^ ROFLMAO Why is it so hard to understand ?

Oh, because the only one we care about is the 2nd one- I forgot. I stand informed.

I am also not exempting the R's from culpability in our march to destruction

Good, because that parties' choice to look like biligerent, uneducated, ill-tempered and regressive back country hicks is why they can't win a popular vote without gassing certain percentages of the population, and win electorates mainly by redistricting.... If ya wonder why people look at us like we're crazy when we raise the gun, its not always the metal that causes the reaction... a lot of times its the sling and case.

A person's opinion of the 2A is usually a good barometer of where that persons stands on the rest of our rights

No, its a great test of their belief in the 2nd one.

The test of what they think of all of them is the constitution as a whole. It seems that no one likes the whole document anymore, I think thats kinda the problem. We'll trade away anything for a measure of security- even our future.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!! Where is the gray?

Apparently its somewhere between "pursuit" and "happiness" if you follow the news.

But a man's gotta have hope.

Amen. We're all in this boat together- like it or not.

Pistol Ranch

January 31, 2013, 01:22 PM

As I see it, the Democratic party favors:
1.Homosexual marriage
2.Gays in the Military
3.Increasing Taxes (On everyone,not just the wealthy)
4.Amnesty for Illegals
5.Global Warming Theory
6.Reduction in Military Strength.
7.Publicly funded birth control
8.Continued support for people able to work but refusing to do so.
9.Runaway spending/Defecit increases
10.Race based policies
11.Disarming the American public
12.Strengthining Unions/Union participation

All in the name of continuing their sorry asses in public office..
Makes me want to puke!

ATLDave

January 31, 2013, 01:23 PM

I'm another gun-owning, gun-rights-supporting Democrat. There is no party that I agree with on even 75% of issues, much less 100%. I'm ALWAYS in the position of voting for people with whom I disagree. I simply have to pick the party and person with whom I disagree less frequently.

I am very much against any new restrictions on the kind of guns that people can own. I am pretty neutral about background checks, and for improving the quality of data (esp. re: mental health) that gets put into the background check process.

I have a lot of friends and family members who are for 10-round limits, etc. They feel this way for the plain and simple reason that they think it will save lives. I believe they are mistaken, and have had many, many long conversations about why I think the world simply does not work that way. Are there some on the far left who truly believe that nobody but the government should be allowed to own sharp scissors? Sure, but that's not the majority. The majority of those who favor more gun control simply believe it will work, usually because of ignorance about the way guns work.

Stay calm, avoid name-calling, and try to get those people to come around. Move one out of 10 from that camp to ours and we're back to a solid majority disfavoring AWB, etc.

Phatty

January 31, 2013, 01:25 PM

The point that many of you are missing is that fact that Obama isn't a Dictator, his power as President is limited. Those of us who vote Democrat, but also are pro A2, take into consideration the balance of power when we cast a vote.

If Romney had won; our A2 rights would be in far more danger than they are right now. Many on the right oppose Obama just for the sake of Opposing him.
See my post above with the specific example of Obama's Supreme Court nominee voting against 2A rights. The greatest impact that a president can have on the 2A is via their Supreme Court nominees. The field of 2A law is in a state of flux right now and the composition of the Supreme Court will have a very real effect on the outcome of this field of law.

kerreckt

January 31, 2013, 01:30 PM

My personal beliefs are that the gun control issue has very little to do about guns and much to do about control. I believe the two major parties are controlled by multinational big business and banking. The "patriot act" was the biggest and most blatant attack on our rights as Americans and to give credit where credit is due was signed into law by a republican president. Why could anybody believe that the party that initiated and signed into law the "patriot act" would be the savior of the 2A? It is only logical (in my way of thinking) that the removal of guns from our society would follow because only by doing this can the total agenda started by the "patriot act" be continued. We are on the path to totalitarian rule and it makes no difference to me if it is from the left or right. We will all suffer. WE NEED TO OPEN OUR EYES AND REALIZE THAT THE ONLY WAY WE CAN AVOID THE TOTAL DEMISE OF THE GREATEST REPUBLIC KNOWN TO MAN IS TO UNITE AND QUIT LISTENING TO THE DIVISIVE LIES FED TO US BY BOTH PARTIES. THEY ARE THERE TO KEEP US DIVIDED AND ARGUING WHILE THEY PUT THE YOKE OVER OUR HEADS.

readyeddy

January 31, 2013, 01:32 PM

Criticizing a gun owner for being a Democrat is like criticizing someone who makes less than one million dollars a year for being a Republican.

There are many issues that have national importance when choosing leaders. Living with President Obama's AWB platform is no fun, but neither was it fun living under President Bush with his two discretionary wars.

gossamer

January 31, 2013, 01:35 PM

See my post above with the specific example of Obama's Supreme Court nominee voting against 2A rights. The greatest impact that a president can have on the 2A is via their Supreme Court nominees. The field of 2A law is in a state of flux right now and the composition of the Supreme Court will have a very real effect on the outcome of this field of law.
And yet this still doesn't make him a dictator. Because the POTUS gets to nominate SCOTUS and the Senate has to confirm them. Which is what happened.

Neither of Obama's SCOTUS appointments failed to get Republican votes. One got 5 and the other got 9. The law was followed, the checks and balances were in place.

It just bothers some because they lost.

6.5x55swedish

January 31, 2013, 01:36 PM

President Obama has signed gun legislation. In 2010 he lifted the Ban on guns in National Parks... and signed a law that allows guns on commuter trains!

John3921

January 31, 2013, 01:38 PM

"See my post above with the specific example of Obama's Supreme Court nominee voting against 2A rights. The greatest impact that a president can have on the 2A is via their Supreme Court nominees. The field of 2A law is in a state of flux right now and the composition of the Supreme Court will have a very real effect on the outcome of this field of law. "

This

A vote or Obama is a vote for his SC nomination. This will be the single most dangerous attack on the second ammendmend. I'm sorry, but thats the way it is. While you may indeed be in favor of RTKBA, your vote accomplishes the opposite.

Dr. Sandman

January 31, 2013, 01:51 PM

If one is pro-gun, then one is not a liberal. One is something else. Liberals should take liberal bashing like an adult, they have earned it.

SSN Vet

January 31, 2013, 01:59 PM

but neither was it fun living under President Bush with his two discretionary wars.

Obama owns the Afghanistan war now.... and will likely preside over it for a longer time then Bush did. And the Democrats supported them as well at the onset via. a troublesome little thing called the War Powers Act.

Waxing the Taliban in 2001 by supporting the Northern Alliance with air assets was, imo, a good thing. Assuming the role of occupier and nation builder proves to be folly time and time again.

6.5x55swedish

January 31, 2013, 02:03 PM

A vote or Obama is a vote for his SC nomination. This will be the single most dangerous attack on the second ammendmend. I'm sorry, but thats the way it is. While you may indeed be in favor of RTKBA, your vote accomplishes the opposite.

See DC V Heller. Justice Souter dissented in that case... and he was appointed by Bush SR. So your argument doesn't hold water.

Shadowdancer

January 31, 2013, 02:04 PM

I fully support the OP. I'm a Democrat and also a life member of the NRA. I would hope that folks would remember that Democrats have served in the Military, have raised their children to the best of their abilities, paid their taxes, and support the Constitution. The complexity of running a Nation precludes the short-sighted 'single-issue' voting practice so many espouse.

Frank Ettin

January 31, 2013, 02:10 PM

This can be an interesting and worthwhile topic for discussion. It's too bad that we've seen some unfortunate drifts toward name calling and inappropriate behavior. Overall it's been okay, but it's time to stop pressing our luck.

If you enjoyed reading about "I am a Democrat for RKBA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!